Mr Redwood’s contribution to the Statement on the Spending Review for 2015-16, 26 June

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I fully support the Chancellor’s wish to reduce the growth rate of public spending in cash terms; it is a very necessary thing to do to get the deficit under control as economic growth picks up, as I think it is now doing. On the welfare reforms, will he look at the idea that any non-British citizen coming to our country should have to work for a period and pay taxes before being eligible for any welfare benefits?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne): I am certainly prepared to look at any ideas that my right hon. Friend puts forward on welfare. Of course, one of our challenges—one of the debates in this country and in other European countries—concerns the eligibility for benefits of people who move here. In that regard, we are hemmed in by European law, but there may be opportunities within it to make some adjustments, and we are looking closely at those.

Better transport for Wokingham and West Berkshire

 

     As the Reading Road/Wokingham station link road takes shape, we learn today that the government plans to improve the M4 between junctions 3 and 12.

    The transport programme for the South east includes improvements on parts of the M3, M20 and M23 as well. It also comprises the rebuilding of Reading Station (almost complete), Crossrail from Maidenhead across London, and the new Wokingham station.

The politics of the Spending Statement

 

          The Spending Statement  concentrated on spending totals for 2015-16. The government does need to plan ahead. The Coalition government will preside over the first two months of the financial year 2015-16. The new government elected in 2015  may continue with the year’s spending plans for the rest of  the year, or could decide to have a summer budget to make adjustments.

         The Announcement seems to have be greeted by agreement between all three main parties  in the Commons that the totals are correct. Labour did not wish to propose spending  and borrowing any more. Labour never suggests spending less overall. A Lib Dem Chief Secretary undertook much of the Minsisterial level work to get the Statement agreed. It was signed off by both the PM and his Deputy.

          Labour’s position is to say that whilst they accept the totals of spending, they disagree with the detail and the priorities. I look forward to hearing more from them nearer the election over how they would shift the  budget around within the agreed totals. It is helpful to know that they, like the Coalition, think a cash increase of 2% is as much as can be afforded.

        The durability of these totals may be high from the political point of view, but it could be tested by the markets and by future economic changes.  The Green Book backing the Statement centres around the reduction in the deficit. To cut the deficit the government both needs higher tax revenues from growth as well as controlled increases in spending under these plans.

           If growth starts to outperform the reduced forecasts it would be good to think extra revenue will be used to cut the deficit faster, rather than triggering a hunt for ways to spend more money. If growth were to disappoint again owing to say another severe phase to the Euro crisis or from a continuing failure of banks to finance the recovery in various parts of the world the government would also have to revisit the strategy and make some more difficult decisions.

          The development of the detailed thinking on the welfare cap will be important. So far we learn that they wish to strengthen job search by unemployed people and require them to attend Job centres weekly; to require all applicants to improve their spoken English; and asking all lone parents to prepare for work when their child turns three.

        Living within a 2% increase in overall budgets will be much easier if the reforms and effficiency drives set out by the government work well.

Wokingham Times

This week the Chancellor will announce how much extra money it thinks the government should spend in 2015-16. Although all the talk is about cuts in public spending in certain departments, the overall total spending will continue to rise, as it has been doing all through this Parliament. Big areas like welfare, pensions, health and education are protected from cuts. In some cases, as with the new pensions uprating system, the more generous approach naturally costs more money.

It seems likely that Labour as well as the Lib Dems and Conservatives will all agree to the new totals, which will show slower growth in cash spending for day to day items, and a bit faster growth in capital spending on items like new railways and roads. The political argument will be about the amounts provided to differing programmes and departments within the agreed totals. All seem to agree that we have to accept more modest cash increases, as the country has borrowed so much already and is still increasing its borrowing at a rapid rate.

I have been working with the Council on the need for more capital spending in our area, in response to the national policy for road and rail improvements. We need to bring our public facilities up to date, as we now are with a new station. We need to improve our transport system so it is easier and safer to get to work and to the shops.

In recent days I have been lobbied by constituents in Shinfield, complaining about Reading Council’s expensive installation of two new sets of traffic lights on the A 327 into Reading. These lights have greatly increased the congestion. The roundabouts we had before worked well, and kept the traffic moving at a suitable safe slower speed across the junctions. It is a good example of how the wrong kind of public spending can make things worse, making voters doubly cross that their road system is made more difficult to use and they have to pay a large bill for the privilege.

The government is encouraging road improvements. Replacing lights with roundabouts can often make a junction flow better . I trust Wokingham will show Reading how to do it, avoiding provocative decisions like the Shinfield Road one at a time when we need to make sure every penny local or national government spends is well spent. The first rule of local and national government spending should be “Do no harm”. Spending plans should be carefully examined to see how many people they can upset, before embarking on them.

Total public spending to rise 2% in 2015-16 on previous year

 

      The slim Green Book reveals that total spending will increase 2% in 2015-16 over 2014-15. Within this pensions and welfare spending is forecast to rise  by £15.3bn or 4.45% (AME) whilst departmental expenditures will decline by just  £0.9 bn.(DEL including depreciation).

       The Green book suggests that this will be a real terms reduction of 0.4%. However, with a continuing wage control allowing only 1% pay growth, with productivity gains and with proper control of general inflation, these figures could end up delivering a small real terms increase if properly managed.

Lords & Commons CC v MCC at Lords Cricket Ground, 16 June

L&CCC Lords 160613

The Rt Hon John Redwood MP and other members of the Lords & Commons Cricket Club verses the Marylebone Cricket Club at Lords Cricket Ground on 16th June 2013. Nigel Adams holds the bat in the middle.

Link to a brief video of the match courtesy of Chris Guyver: John Redwood cover drive Lord’s 16th June 2013.

This was a privilege for the Lords and Commons to be able to play at Lords on the Nursery Ground against the MCC. Their team contained many good cricketers, so we were delighted to hold on at the end for a draw despite the return of the very fast opening bowlers trying to wrap up our innings. Nigel Adams was the Lords and Commons hero, managing an unbeaten century.

 

What it costs to run a railway

The 2012-13 Accounts for Network Rail make interesting reading. This public sector owned company escapes most comment and attention, because Ministers seem to think it is not their responsibility to tell us about its profits and losses or explain in any detail its peformance. It is a so called independent company, but one which in effect is taxpayer owned.

Taxpayers indirectly supply much of its income through the subsidies to the railways, routed into Network Rail via the access charges it places on operating companies. Most in the press seem to ignore what is a most interesting document, accounting for billions of public investment and cost.

Network Rail’s debts now stand at a large £30.3bn, an 11.3% increase over the last year. Operating costs rose by 9.5%, in part reflecting the big increase in capital. Capital expenditure ran at £5050 million for the year, an increase of 9.8%.

The current value of its large portfolio of derivative financial instrument liabilities is a negative £1208 million. Its current value of derivative assets is £673 million. Is this a good portfolio of assets and risks for taxpayers to own? Operating profits fell 5.5% in the year.

At a time when Ministers are planning further increases in rail expenditure, and are keen to promote more railway construction, they would be well advised to examine these accounts. They should be asking why costs went up so much last year, why profits fell, and how the balance sheet is constructed. They should be asking how much more of their planned future programme Network Rail could finance out of improved cashflow from improved financial performance. The debt build up is fast and large.

I am in favour of Network Rail improving its stations and facilities for travellers. I am also in favour of Network Rail financing more of this from property transactions bringing more railway property into more productive use, and harnessing private improvement, finance and development adjacent to the stations and tracks where there is land available.

On the day when the government is going to announce a reduced rate of increase in spending, proper demands for improved efficiency and effectiveness at NR would be a good idea as there is a lot of public money at risk here.

Wokingham Times, 12 June

Many people in the UK want a new relationship with the EU. Indeed, so many have warmed to this idea in the recent Prime MInisterial speech on the topic, that now all the pressure is on him to get on and deliver it far sooner than he proposed or thought possible. Many want it now, not in 2017.

Some people in politics point out that the EU is not a major preoccupation of voters according to the opinion polls. They tell us to change the subject, to talk of jobs and other matters that concern us in our daily lives. That can be good advice. People talk to me about their energy bills, about immigration, about the need for more industry in the UK and about the prospects for their children after education.

The trouble is these important matters are now heavily influenced by or even dominated by EU policies and laws. The number of jobs we can generate is affected by EU rules and regulations, which can get in the way of new businesses trying to set up or expand. Our high and rising energy bills are the result of energy policies set by the EU, requiring us to generate much more power fropm expensive windfarms and forcing us to close older power stations that produce cheap electricity. We have open borders with the rest of the EU, which makes it difficult for a UK government to pursue a migration policy that reflects the wishes of many. Creating more industry int he UK is difficult given energy prices and other EU imposed constraints.

One of the myths in the debate is we need to be in the current EU to trade with the EU. Last week I spoke to a gathering of senior business people and opinion formers at the annual German British Forum, in London. There were the usual warnings to the UK to understand that we have an important trade with the rest of the EU so we must stay in the current EU to enjoy that.

I asked the audience, which included numerous senior Germans, if they were seriously suggesting that if the Uk inststs on a new relationship or even leaves the EU, they would no longer want to trade with us. Of course they did not hold that view. I then asked them if we left would they seek to impose tariffs and controls on our trade,. Again, no-one thought that a good idea. It would, of coruse, be against international trade rules anyway. It woudl also invite retaliation from us, as they sell us more than we sell them it would be especially silly.

An increasing number of Conservative Ministers are in dispute with the EU, as they are unable to carry out the wishes of many electors to change things for the better. There are disputes over our borders, over extradition, over welfare eligibility, over energy, over financial taxation and over VAT, amongst others. I am pressing the government to engage more widely with the EU. We need that new relationship as soon as possible.

Meeting the new NHS

 

       On Monday Mr Tait and Dr Payne came to see me to discuss the local NHS. They are the  CEO and Medical Director of NHS England for the Thames Valley. Their role is to oversee the work of the 10 Clinical Commissioning Groups in their area. Oxfordshire has one, Buckinghamshire 2, and Berkshire 7. We in the Wokingham constituency are in the West Berks one.

          They told me they oversee the Clinical Commissioning Groups, the buyers of health care in the area.  They also do some direct purchasing themselves to ensure a comprehensive free service for us. They cover issues like emergency planning and tertiary care.

           I asked them if there were any plans afoot to make major changes in local hospital provision. They said they expected Heatherwood and Frimley to become larger hospitals but anticipate the Royal Berks on its current site will continue to be our main District General Hospital. Some more specialist areas will be run from Oxford, as at present.

            I asked them what action was being taken to ensure

1. high standards of hotel service for patients in hospital

2.  good control of patient records, with easy access for all nurses and care assistants to the information they need to look after each patient as required

3. proper control of stocks,equipment and drugs to avoid waste, loss and misuse

4. to ensure high standards of staff training and leadership, so that patients receive high quality care at all times

5. to handle changes of shift and to provide safe services at week-ends

         They pro0msied to get back to me and keep me in touch with developments as they get the new system to settle down.

 

 

Mr Bernanke upsets the markets

 

Before Mr Bernanke spoke about the need to curtail and then  stop Quantitative Easing the markets behaved as if there was no cloud in the investment sky. Since he spoke, they have behaved as if we would never see the investment sun again. Both positions seem unrealistic.

As the market declines have continued for longer, we need to ask could the markets talk and move themselves to a crisis?  There is no immediate prospect of the kind of credit crunch and banking crisis in the west that drove the markets down in 2007-8. There is no-one forecasting a recession in the USA to match the crashes of the last decade.  On that basis the  Stock market reactions to higher bond yields looks overdone.

There are some problems out there which in its current mood the world Stock market takes more seriously. There is the trouble on the streets of Turkey and Brazil, once fast growing emerging market economies in favour. In China, still growing at more than 7%, suddenly the authorities seem to want to teach the banks and financial instituutions a lesson about controlling their lending instead of making easy liquidity available. Will they judge that right, or could they start to do damage to the very institutions which power and finance the growth?

Worse still, in Euroland, the markets are now driving up the cost of government borrowing again. For the time being Spain  and Italy will have to pay 1% more to borrow, but the levels are still below the panic levels of the past. However, again market watchers will get more nervous if bond yields continue to rise, placing bigger  question marks over the capacity of these governments to afford the money they need to raise from the bond markets.

The Uk has seen the 10 year cost of borrowing rise from 1.7% to 2.56% yesterday. It’s still low, but means a bit more cost to taxpayers as the government continues to expand its borrowing.

For the time being the markets worries have not done enough to interest rates and to the financial system to cause justified major worries. However, the more they slide, the more we need to look at the collateral damage it does. Mr Bernanke may be pleased with his work, as the US economy is strengthening and he needed to blow away some of the exuberance. He also seems to have knocked parts of the world like Euroland that are still struggling,  and hit emerging market economies that are slowing anyway, which is not such a great result.